Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Review Article
Health Safety of Soft Drinks: Contents, Containers,
and Microorganisms
Dorota Kregiel
Institute of Fermentation Technology and Microbiology, Faculty of Biotechnology and Food Sciences,
Lodz University of Technology, Wolczanska 171/173, 90-924 Lodz, Poland
Correspondence should be addressed to Dorota Kregiel; dorota.kregiel@p.lodz.pl
Received 10 September 2014; Revised 12 November 2014; Accepted 4 December 2014
Academic Editor: Stanley Brul
Copyright 2015 Dorota Kregiel. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License,
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Soft drinks consumption is still a controversial issue for public health and public policy. Over the years, numerous studies have been
conducted into the possible links between soft drink intake and medical problems, the results of which, however, remain highly
contested. Nevertheless, as a result, increasing emphasis is being placed on the health properties of soft drinks, by both the industry
and the consumers, for example, in the expanding area of functional drinks. Extensive legislation has been put in place to ensure
that soft drinks manufacturers conform to established national and international standards. Consumers trust that the soft drinks
they buy are safe and their quality is guaranteed. They also expect to be provided with information that can help them to make
informed decisions about the purchase of products and that the information on product labels is not false or misleading. This paper
provides a broad overview of available scientific knowledge and cites numerous studies on various aspects of soft drinks and their
implications for health safety. Particular attention is given to ingredients, including artificial flavorings, colorings, and preservatives
and to the lesser known risks of microbiological and chemical contamination during processing and storage.
1. Background
2. Legislation
Description
Potable water, water with flavorings and minerals/vitamins.
(i) Still water: noncarbonated, mineral, spring or table water, with or without added
flavorings and vitamins/minerals.
(ii) Carbonated water: mineral, spring or table water, low carbonated waters,
naturally sparkling or sparkling by CO2 injection.
(iii) Flavored water: unsweetened water, with essences and/or aromatic substances.
Bottled water
Bulk/hot water
Carbonates
Juice
Nectars
Still drinks
Squash/syrups
Fruit powders
Iced/ready-to-drink tea/coffee
drinks
Sports drinks
Energy drinks
Sports drinks
Wellness drinks
Functional
drinks
Nutraceuticals
Energy drinks
3. Ingredients
Soft drinks typically contain water, sweetener (8 12%, w/v),
carbon dioxide (0.3 0.6% w/v), acidulants (0.05 0.3% w/v),
flavorings (0.1 0.5% w/v), colorings (0 70 ppm), chemical
preservatives (lawful limits), antioxidants (<100 ppm), and/or
foaming agents (e.g., saponins up to 200 mg/mL). Some
types of soft drink use sugar substitutes. However, certain
ingredients may be hazardous to health if consumed in large
quantities, and there is widespread concern generally with
regard to preservatives and sweeteners. Therefore, while on
the one hand there is a trend to produce ever wider ranges of
more specialist soft drinks, there is also pressure to minimize
3
which have been approved for use within levels of Acceptable
Daily Intake (ADI) and in accordance with the appropriate
regulations. The most commonly used sweeteners (with
maximum permitted dosage in the EU) are aspartame
(600 mg/L), acesulfame K (350 mg/L), sucralose (300 mg/L),
and saccharin (80 mg/L) [17].
Aspartame (E951) consists of two amino acids: Lphenylalanine and L-aspartic acid, esterified to methyl alcohol. This compound is 200 times sweeter than sucrose and
leaves no unpleasant aftertaste. However, it is unstable at
high temperatures and therefore is unsuitable for use in
pasteurized beverages. Aspartame is also unstable in aqueous
solutions, where it is gradually converted into diketopiperazine (DKP). In the body, aspartame is broken down into
phenylalanine (about 50% by weight), aspartic acid (40%),
and methanol (10%). Soft drinks with aspartame must carry
a label indicating that the product contains phenylalanine,
which can be harmful to individuals with phenylketonuria,
who must strictly limit the intake of this amino acid.
Aspartame is permitted in more than 100 countries in the
world. Authorities that have approved aspartame include the
FDA, the Agence Francaise de Securite Sanitaire des Aliments
(AFSSA), and the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on
Food Additives (JECFA). In 2013, the European Food Safety
Authority (EFSA) approved aspartame for use in food and
beverages [19].
Acesulfame K (E950) is 200 times sweeter than sucrose,
thermo- and pH-stable, and freely soluble in water. This
compound is neither metabolized nor stored in the body.
The FDA, FAO/WHO, JECFA, and the Scientific Committee
on Food of the European Union (SCF) have concluded that
acesulfame is safe for use in foods and beverages.
Sucralose (E955) is derived from sucrose through selective replacement by chlorine atoms of three hydroxyl groups.
This compound is 600 times sweeter than sucrose but has no
calories. Readily soluble in water and acid solutions, sucralose
hydrolyses slowly to its monosaccharides. Sucralose has been
determined safe by FAO/WHO, JECFA, and FDA and is
permitted for use in beverages in more than 40 countries,
including the United States, Canada, Australia, and Mexico
[20]. In 2011, sucralose, along with other sugar substitutes,
was cleared for use by the EFSA as a sweetener in food and
beverages [21].
Saccharin (E954) is 300 times sweeter than sucrose but
leaves a bitter/metallic aftertaste. Use of saccharin in foods
dates back to 1907. This sweetener is permitted in more than
100 countries around the world [13, 15].
Other less common sweeteners include thaumatin (E957)
and stevioside (E960). Thaumatin is a mixture of proteins
isolated from the katemfe fruit (Thaumatococcus daniellii
Benth) from West Africa. It is the most powerful natural
sweetener, 2000 times sweeter than sugar. It is used in food
as a safe sweetener and flavour modifier [12]. Stevioside
is another intense sweetener, 200 times sweeter than
sucrose, extracted from the leaves of the stevia plant (Stevia
rebaudiana Bertoni). It has a long history of use in several
countries, including Japan and Paraguay [15]. Stevioside is
permitted for use in many countries, including the USA,
France, Mexico, Korea, Taiwan, China, Russia, Australia,
4
Argentina, New Zealand, Colombia, Peru, Uruguay, Brazil,
Switzerland, and Malaysia. In Canada, stevia extract is sold
as a natural health product. In Europe (except France), stevia
is permitted as a dietary supplement but is not yet permitted
for use as a sweetener in food and beverages [22]. In France,
stevia extract (rebaudioside A) is permitted for use as a
sweetener in foods and beverages [23]. Other sweeteners
used more rarely in soft drinks include cyclamate, erythritol,
and neotame [17]. Over the years, the number of available
sweeteners has steadily increased.
3.3. Fruit Juices. Fruits and fruit juices are a rich source of
various nutrients and bioactive compounds, such as fiber,
sugars, organic acids, phosphates, minerals, and vitamins,
as well as colors, flavors, and antioxidants [13]. The sugar
content in natural fruit juices varies depending on the
type of fruit. All fruit juices contain fructose but vary in
their amounts of sucrose, glucose, and sorbitol. Lemons,
limes, rhubarb, raspberries, blackberries, and cranberries are
relatively low in sugars. For example, one tablespoon of fresh
lemon juice has 4 calories. Fruit groups high in saccharides
include grapes, tangerines, cherries, pomegranates, mangoes,
figs, and bananas. About 12 medium-size grapes contain 52
calories [18].
Apart from sugars, vitamins, and minerals, fruits and
fruit juices contain another important component of a balanced diet: fiber. Dietary fiber is defined as nondigestible
carbohydrates and lignin, including starch or the nonstarch
polysaccharides cellulose, hemicelluloses, pectins, hydrocolloids, and oligosaccharides. It has been confirmed that highfiber diets can improve digestive health and help prevent
heart disease, diabetes, weight gain, and some cancers [24].
Fruits rich in fiber include apples, blackberries, pears, and
raspberries. One medium apple with its skin contains 4.4
grams of fiber, half a cup of fresh blackberries contain 3.8
grams, and a half-cup of raspberries contains 4 grams, while
the same size serving of strawberries provides only 2 grams of
dietary fiber. According to the US Department of Agriculture,
regardless of age, weight, or gender, people should consume
at least 14 grams of fiber for every 1 000 calories [25]. The
EFSA recommends average dietary fiber intakes of 10 to
20 g per day for young children (<10 to 12 years), 15 to 30 g
per day for adolescents, and 16 to 29 g per day for adults
[26].
3.4. Acidity Regulators and Carbon Dioxide. The carbonation
of soft drinks varies from 1.5 to 5 g/L. Carbon dioxide is
supplied to soft drinks manufacturers either in solid form (as
dry ice) or in liquid form maintained under high pressure in
heavy steel containers. This process makes the drink more
acidic, which serves to sharpen the flavor and taste [27]. It
also helps preserve soft drinks for longer time [28]. Acidity
regulators are used in soft drinks to improve their taste by
balancing the sweetness. Human saliva is almost neutral (pH
approximately 6.8), and when our taste receptors interact
with acids in food or drink this sensation is perceived as
sourness [29]. Acids also play an important role in the natural
preservation of soft drinks [30].
5
techniques, which have reduced the need to use benzoates in
soft drinks production. However, these preservatives are still
necessary to maintain quality in some beverages.
DMDC is commonly used as a preservative in coldsterilized soft drinks. DMDC is very reactive and rapidly
breaks down when added to a substrate, such as a waterbased beverage. The principal products are methanol and
carbon dioxide; however, the methanol concentrations after
treatment with DMDC are of no toxicological concern.
DMDC performs a broad range of antimicrobial actions
against yeasts, mould fungi, and bacteria. Dimethyl dicarbonate penetrates into the cell and deactivates enzymes,
leading to the destruction of the microorganism [43]. Various
international regulatory bodies have evaluated DMDC and
concluded that there are no health or safety concerns when
this preservative is used in permitted food categories at
prescribed usage levels. The safety of DMDC was evaluated
by the USFDA in 1988 and approved for use in wines as
a yeast inhibitor up to a concentration of 200 mg/L. The
European Scientific Committee on Food evaluated DMDC
in 1990 and concluded that it was suitable for the cold
sterilisation of soft drinks and fruit juices at levels up to
250 mg/L. DMDC was also evaluated in 1990 by the Joint
FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives. It was
considered acceptable as a cold sterilising agent for beverages
when used in accordance with Good Manufacturing Practice
up to a maximum concentration of 250 mg/L [44].
Sulfites are sulfur-containing compounds and have been
used for centuries to reduce or prevent spoilage and to
enhance the flavor or preserve freshness in fruit juices. However, in recent years sulfites, as well as sorbates and benzoates,
have been associated with allergic reactions in some people,
especially sufferers of asthma [12]. The FDA requires labeling
on any food containing a sulfite concentration of more than
10 parts per million (ppm). EU legislation also states that the
additives used in a product should be listed on the label so
as to permit consumers to make informed choices and avoid
certain additives when necessary [40].
The use of natural antimicrobial compounds in soft
drinks has become a subject of concern for both consumers
and industry. This is due to two primary factors. Firstly,
the misuse and mishandling of various preservatives have
resulted in a remarkable rise in the number of microorganisms, including some foodborne pathogens, which are
more tolerant to food processing and preservation methods.
Secondly, increasing consumer awareness of the potential
negative impact of synthetic preservatives on health, in
contrast to the benefits of natural additives, has generated
interest in the development and use of natural products.
Compounds derived from natural sources have antimicrobial
properties against a broad range of foodborne pathogens and
could be used as alternative preservatives, with the potential
of enhancing the safety and quality of drinks [45].
Since the first scientific experiments on plant antimicrobial activity and chemical composition were documented in
the second half of the 19th century, a wide range of food
plants, including various berries and fruits, have been shown
to inhibit microbial growth. Different plants belonging to
various families possess strong antimicrobial properties. For
6
example, the Rosaceae family includes several species which
are well known for their antibacterial activity, such as cloudberries (Rubus chamaemorus), raspberries (Rubus idaeus),
strawberries (Fragaria ananassa), blackberries (Rubus fruticosus), chokeberries (Aronia melanocarpa), and European
rowan (Sorbus aucuparia) [46, 47]. The list of plants which
exhibit antimicrobial effects is long, over 1000 fruits and herbs
[48].
The antimicrobial activity of plant extracts is based
on phenolics (simple phenols, phenolic acids, quinones,
flavones, flavonoids, flavonols, tannins, and coumarins), terpenoids and essential oils, alkaloids, lectins, polypeptides,
and so forth [49]. Various aroma compounds and citron
essential oils containing citral, -pinene, limonene, linalool,
and -pinene, combined with mild heat treatment, have been
used to inhibit the growth of S. cerevisiae in noncarbonated soft drinks. Clary, sage, juniper, lemon, and marjoram
essential oils were shown by Lucera et al. to preserve apple
juice [50]. The antimicrobial effects of these essential oils
have been observed in the acidic pH range. Synergism or
additive effects may result from the combination of different
active compounds. Although some active agents are known
to influence smell or taste, this has rarely been the object
of close study. One solution to the problem may be to
use combinations of different preservation systems, which
would provide the benefits of each while at the same time
appreciably reducing the amount of antimicrobial agent
required.
3.7. Other Ingredients. Various hydrocolloids, such as guar
and locust gum, pectin, and xanthan, are used as stabilizers
and thickeners, especially in diet drinks (to improve mouthfeel) and fruit juice drinks (to reduce phase separation).
Antioxidants, most commonly ascorbic acid, are used to
prevent the deterioration of flavors and colors, especially
when drinks are packaged in oxygen-permeable bottles
and cartons. Functional drinks, nutraceuticals, and wellness
drinks contain a variety of unconventional ingredients, which
can include the so-called superfruits (e.g., pomegranate,
acai, acerola, noni, and mangosteen), berries (e.g., cranberries, blackberries, strawberries, and blueberries), or botanical extracts (e.g., ginger, ginkgo, and melissa) [36]. Some
functional drinks use plant sterols and omega-3 fatty acids to
promote heart health. Others include dietary fibres, such as
inulin and maltodextrin, which are prebiotics that selectively
modulate host microbiota, conferring health benefits [51].
The most common active ingredients of energy drinks are
taurine (average 3180 mg/L), caffeine (360630 mg/L), and
caffeine-rich plant extracts (e.g., tea, ginseng, guarana, and
yerba mate). Energy drinks also contain B-vitamins (B3, B6,
and B12) [52]. The main ingredients in sport drinks are carbohydrates in the form of glucose, fructose, and maltodextrin
(5.58.2% w/v), salts, and water [53]. Typical sodium and
potassium concentrations are 20 30 and 5 mM, respectively
[54]. In addition, an increasing number of other functional
ingredients are being used in sports drinks. Energy drinks
are promoted for their stimulating effects and claim to offer a
variety of benefits including increased attention, endurance,
and performance. They are also associated with weight loss
4. Bottle Material
Harmonization of legislation on food contact material
(FCM), meaning that for specific food contact materials the
EU fixes specific requirements which allow them to be considered to be generally in compliance with the rules in operation in all EU territories, began in the early 2000s and has
since been in a process of constant evolution. Currently, EU
legislation covers the following FCM: cellulose films, ceramics, plastics, elastomers and rubbers, coatings, and adhesives.
The general requirements for all food contact materials are
laid down in Framework Regulation EC 1935/2004. Any
migration of unsafe levels of chemical substances from the
material to the food, changing the composition of the food
in an unacceptable way or having adverse effects on its taste
and/or off-flavor, must be prevented. Good Manufacturing
Practice for materials and articles intended for contact with
food is described in Regulation EC 2023/2006. There are also
EU regulations and directives for specific materials: ceramics,
regenerated cellulose film, plastics, recycled plastics, and
active and intelligent materials. Some directives cover single
substances or groups of substances used in the manufacture
of food contact materials.
It would be difficult to present a complete introduction
to US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) legislation and
its practical use in the clearance of food contact materials,
a task which is in any case beyond the scope of this paper.
Central to its policy, however, is the FDAs Threshold of
Regulation (TOR) program, which sets limits under which
certain substances that may migrate into foods from packaging or food processing equipment do not need to be included
as additives on product information. Over 3000 of these
substances, known as indirect food additives, are listed
along with administrative and chemical information as part
of the Priority-Based Assessment of Food Additives (PAFA)
program. These include components in adhesives, coatings,
paper, and paperboard, as well as polymers, adjuvants, and
production aids. Additional exemptions for substances are
listed in separate inventories. Title 21 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR), part 170,39, Threshold of Regulation
for Substances Used in Food-Contact Articles, presents
conditions and guidelines for making a TOR request, which
producers must submit in order to ensure that indirect food
additives and their estimated exposure qualify for exemption
under the TOR process [6163].
Most convenience beverage bottles in both the United
States and the European Union are made from glass and
plastics. Seven resin codes (usually found on the bottom
of containers and bottles) are used to indicate the types
of resin in plastics. Of these, the most commonly used in
the food industry are (i) polyethylene terephthalate (PET)
for soft drink bottles and water bottles; (ii) low density
polyethylene (LDPE) for wrapping films and grocery bags;
(iii) polypropylene (PP) for syrup bottles, yogurt tubs, and
bottle caps; (iv) polystyrene (PS) for single-use coffee cups.
Soft drinks are also packaged in tin-free steel, aluminum,
treated cardboard cartons, or foil pouches.
Glass bottles seem to be the safest option for food
packaging and storage, since there is no possible transferal
7
of contaminating chemicals. Glass recycling is also more
environmentally friendly than plastic recycling, which can
release toxic chemicals. However, soft drinks containers
are often stored under unpredictable conditions for several
months before consumption, and this can have an effect on
how they interact with the liquids inside. Different materials
(glass, soft PET, and hard PET) and different bottle colors
have different effects. It has been demonstrated that under
certain conditions glass bottles can contaminate bottled water
with Pb and Zr [64]. Other elements may be added to glass
during the production process to determine color (Fe, Cr for
green colors, Co for blue colors). Reimann et al. [65] have
shown that many more elements leach from glass than from
PET bottles. Comparing water sold in PET-bottles to the same
water sold in glass bottles, Ce, Pb, Al, and Zr were found to
leach most from glass, but levels of Ti, Th, La, Pr, Fe, Zn,
Nd, Sn, Cr, Tb, Er, Gd, Bi, Sm, Y, Lu, Yb, Tm, Nb, and Cu
were all also significantly higher compared to water sold in
PET bottles. The pH of beverages can also be assumed to
play an important role in the release of elements from their
containers. In most cases leaching increases considerably at a
lowered pH of 3.5, often by a factor 10 or more. The leaching
of chemical elements from mineral water bottle materials was
also found by these authors to be temperature-dependent
[66].
Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles have been
shown to contaminate water with Sb, with concentrations
increasing with storage time [6769]. It is also well known
that acetaldehyde and antimony leach from PET bottles,
although this process is not fully understood due to the
number of contributing factors (contact time, type of simulant, temperature, exposure to sunlight, and bottle color). In
light of these difficulties, further investigation is needed to
understand the migration of degradation products from PET
and ensure that it is safe for use in food and drinks containers
[70].
Plastic bottles have other chemicals that can contaminate
the beverages they contain. One example is bisphenol A
(BPA) which can affect the natural communication system
of hormones when ingested. Phthalates also leach into the
bottled water we drink after as little as 10 weeks of storage,
or much faster if the bottles have been left in the sun.
Phthalates are used as plasticizers to increase the flexibility
of plastics, including PVC. As they are not chemically bound
in plastics, they can leach into the environment. Moreover,
phthalates are lipophilic compounds and have been found
to bioaccumulate in fats. Exposure to phthalates can be
detrimental to human health. The larger molecular weight
phthalates, di(2-ethyl-hexyl) phthalate (DEHP), di-n-butyl
phthalate (DBP), diisononyl phthalate (DiNP), are suspected
carcinogens and are known to be toxic to the liver, kidneys,
and reproductive organs [71]. More toxic chemicals leach
from reused plastic bottles than from new.
The bottle material may also influence the number and
type of microorganisms in soft drinks, due to cells adhering
to the bottle surface. Plastic bottles have higher surface
roughness, hydrophobicity, and electrostatic charges than
glass bottles and usually have higher microbial counts [72].
Nutrients from soft drinks are absorbed by and concentrate
8
on plastic surfaces and therefore are more available to
bacteria. Adsorption of organic matter is then the basis for
adhesion of microorganisms to bottle surfaces. Jayasekara
and coworkers [73] report considerable variation between
bottles from the same water producer and found that up to
83% of the total microbial population adhered to the inner
surfaces of those bottles. In contrast, Jones et al. [72] detected
much lower levels of adhesion. Their studies using scanning
electron microscopy revealed sparse cell adherence to the surfaces of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) packaging, while
biofilms represented around 0.031.79% of the total viable
count in 1.5 L water bottles. The differing results of these
studies suggest that bottles made from different resins may
provide microhabitats suitable for specific microflora [74].
5. Microbial Spoilage
Microbial contamination of soft drinks usually originates
during the production process. The raw materials, factory
environment, microbiological state of the equipment and
packages, and lack of hygiene are all possible factors [75, 76].
Packaging materials such as cans and bottles can also be
sources of contamination.
There are two main methods of producing soft beverages.
In the first, the syrup is diluted with water, after which the
product is cooled, carbonated, and bottled. In the second,
a precise amount of syrup is measured into each bottle,
which is then filled with carbonated water. The processes of
blending of syrups and mixing with water, container washing,
and container filling are all performed almost entirely by
automatic machinery. Returnable bottles are washed in hot
alkaline solutions for a minimum of five minutes and then
rinsed thoroughly. Single-use containers are usually air- or
water-rinsed before filling. The preparation of noncarbonated
beverages requires similar processes. However, since they
lack the protection against spoilage provided by carbonation,
noncarbonated drinks are usually pasteurized, either in bulk,
by continuous flash pasteurization prior to filling, or in the
bottle. Cold aseptic filling is usually used, especially for sport
drinks, teas, flavored waters, and juices.
The condition of raw materials and the production
environment can directly or indirectly affect the safety of
manufactured soft drinks. The following obligatory systems
have been designed to ensure food safety: Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP), Good Hygienic Practice (GHP),
and Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP)
[77]. However, when technological processes go wrong, the
method of beverage production will have a significant impact
on the type of spoilage microflora.
Spoilage is a metabolic process that causes beverages to be
undesirable or unacceptable for human consumption, due to
changes in sensory characteristics. Microbial contamination
of raw materials can cause odors, gushing, and other undesirable defects in the final product. Soft drinks are high in
water activity and often rich in vitamins and minerals, so they
present an attractive environment for microorganism [75, 78
81]. Soft drinks can contain different types of microorganism,
but aciduric microorganisms are the only significant spoilage
microflora; although new, sometimes exotic ingredients used
Table 2: Examples of quality changes in soft drinks associated with common spoilage microorganisms.
Group
Yeasts
LAB
AAB
ACB
Molds
Genera/species
Aureobasidium pullulans;
Candida davenportii, C. parapsilosis, C. tropicalis, C.
solani;
Clavispora lusitaniae;
Cryptococcus albidus, C. laurentii;
Debaryomyces hansenii, D. etchellsii, D. polymorphus;
Dekkera anomala, D. bruxellensis;
Galactomyces geotrichum;
Issatchenkia orientalis;
Kluyveromyces lactis, K. marxianus;
Metschnikowia pulcherrima;
Pichia anomala, P. jadinii, P. membranifaciens, P.
subpelliculosa;
Rhodotorula glutinis;
Saccharomycescerevisiae, S. bayanus, S. exiguous;
Schizosaccharomyces pombe;
Zygosaccharomyces bailii, Z. bisporus, Z. lentus, Z.
rouxii
Lactobacillus acidophilus, L. brevis, L. buchneri, L.
paracasei, L. perolens, L. plantarum;
Leuconostoc mesenteroides;
Weissella confusa
Acetobacter suboxydans;
Gluconobacter oxydans;
Gluconacetobacter sacchari;
Asaia lannensis, A. bogorensis
Alicyclobacillus acidoterrestris, A. acidophilus, A.
acidocaldarius, A. cycloheptanicus, A. hesperidium, A.
herbarius, A. pomorum
Aspergillus niger, A. penicillioides, A. versicolor;
Byssochlamys nivea (fulva);
Cladosporium sphaerospermum;
Fusarium oxysporum;
Eupenicillium brefeldianum;
Mucor circinelloides, M.racemosus;
Neosartorya fischeri;
Paecilomyces fulva, variotii;
Penicillium glabrum;
Rhizopus stolonifer;
Talaromyces flavus (macrosporus)
Metabolites
Visual defects
Odours
CO2 , ethanol,
diacetyl,
acetaldehyde, esters,
pentadiene,
pectin degradation,
EPS
Haze, clouds,
surface films,
swollen packages
Yeasty, aldehyde,
vinegar,
pineapple note
Loss of carbon
dioxide, ropiness,
turbidity
Cheesy, sour,
green apple
Haze, ropiness,
surface films
Sour, vinegar
2,6-Dibromophenol,
guaiacol
Without defects
Antiseptic and
smoky taints
Mycelial mats,
discoloration
swollen packages
Musty, stale
fruits, fruit juices, and packaging materials [79]. These bacteria are also resistant to benzoic and sorbic acids. Common
LAB responsible for spoilage are Lactobacillus paracasei, L.
brevis, L. buchneri, L. plantarum, L. perolens, and also Leuconostoc mesenteroides and Weissella confusa [78]. Depending
on the species and growth conditions, sugar catabolism can
lead to the formation of lactic acid, ethanol, acetate, succinate,
or formate [94]. Formic acid has been proposed as a LAB
spoilage indicator in apple juice [95]. Metabolites of LAB are
responsible for loss of carbonation and increasing astringency
in soft drinks [79]. Some strains produce diacetyl, which
gives a buttery taste and smell. L. mesenteroides and W.
confusa are able to produce extracellular polymers composed
of fructose or glucose, which are responsible for ropiness in
drinks or biofilm formation on technological surfaces [78, 96,
97].
10
Acetic acid bacteria (AAB) are less common in soft drinks
than LAB, since they are strictly aerobic and require at
least some oxygen for growth [79]. AAB are acid-tolerant
bacteria and grow at pH 3.0 3.8, producing acetic, gluconic,
lactic, and succinic acids, acetaldehyde, or ketones [79, 98].
The taxonomy of AAB has been modified significantly as
new genera have been isolated, and new molecular methods
of identification have been introduced [99]. Many AAB
tolerate commonly used preservatives (benzoates, sorbates,
and dimethyldicarbonate) [98]. Their growth in soft drinks
can cause flavor changes, package swelling, ropiness, haze,
or sediments. Many species have the ability to form biofilms
on production surfaces or packaging materials [78, 100,
101]. Besides the earliest isolated genera Acetobacter and
Gluconobacter, Gluconacetobacter and Asaia rods are also
common contaminants in soft drinks [100, 102104]. Serious
problems with AAB may occur in beverages packaged in
oxygen-permeable containers, for example, in certain types
of PET bottles.
Coliforms (e.g., Klebsiella, Citrobacter, and Enterobacter)
and other members of Enterobacteriaceae are generally acidintolerant, although some are able to proliferate in juices with
pH values below 4.3 [79]. Extracellular polymers maybe also
be produced, so Gram-negative bacteria can be detected as
specimens of biofilm consortia in plant environments [101,
105107].
5.4. Pathogens. Studies on microbiological quality of carbonated soft drinks have shown that, as a result of poor hygiene,
soft drinks can contain high numbers of pathogenic bacteria.
Enteric pathogens do not belong to indigenous microbes in
fruit. Rather, contamination results from direct or indirect
contact with faeces [108]. Bacterial pathogens can remain
viable in carbonated soft drinks for different periods [109,
110]. The pathogenic bacteria most commonly encountered in
fruit juice-related outbreaks of foodborne disease are enterohemorrhagic or Shiga-toxin-producing E. coli, the serotype
O157:H7, and various serotypes of Salmonella [111]. E. coli and
Salmonella have been shown to be capable of surviving up to
48 hours in a cola soft drink, while Yersinia enterocolitica have
been found to be able to survive in a commercial orange soft
drink (pH 3.5) for 3 days at 30 C [112].
Many exotic juices used in modern beverage formulations
(e.g., acai, melon, persimmon, and papaya) have low acidity
(pH 4.86.2). These juices provide conditions suitable not
only for the survival but also for the growth of pathogenic
bacteria [108]. Such bacteria are able to survive in acidic
juices long enough to transmit diseases. Concentrates used
for soft drink production may provide a good environment
for pathogenic bacteria to survive. For example, Listeria
monocytogenes and Y. enterocolitica have been found to be
capable of surviving for lengthy periods in various frozen
juice concentrates and in freshly pressed orange juice (pH
6.3) [112, 113]. Incubation at a low temperature (4 C) usually
enhances the survival of pathogenic bacteria [114].
Parasites and viruses may also be associated with fruit
juice-related disease outbreaks. Protozoa do not replicate
outside their hosts, but they can survive for long periods
in the environment in a resting stage, that is, in oocysts.
11
6. Conclusion
Soft drinks consumption is still a controversial issue for
public health and public policy. Over the years, numerous
studies have been conducted into the possible links between
soft drink intake and medical problems, the results of which,
however, remain contested. All the ingredients in soft drinks
should be approved for use under the appropriate regulations
governing the maximal concentrations and acceptable daily
doses. Nevertheless, there is a strong body of evidence to
support the existence of health risks associated, especially,
with overconsumption and with certain artificial colorings
and preservatives. Lesser known to the public are risks
involving chemical and microbial contamination from containers, production equipment, and (in the case of microbial
contamination) certain ingredients themselves. These can
affect even the so-called healthy low-calorie and functional
drinks. Consumers require further education on the use
of ingredients, additives, and packaging materials and their
potential effects on human health. In turn, producers are
under pressure to ensure the health safety of their goods, both
from legislation and from consumer demand.
Conflict of Interests
The author declares that there is no conflict of interests
regarding the publication of this paper.
References
[1] Canadean Beverage Categories Definitions, 2008, http://www
.liquidforecasts.com/CanadeanDefinitions.pdf.
[2] C. Tenge and E. Geiger, Alternative functional beverages,
MBAA Technical Quarterly, vol. 38, pp. 3335, 2001.
[3] 3. Codex General Standard for Food Additives (CODEX
STAN 192-1995, Rev. 7-2006), http://www.codexalimentarius
.net/gsfaonline/docs/CXS 192e.pdf.
[4] Guide to Food Labelling and Advertising, Canadian Food
Inspection Agency, http://www.inspection.gc.ca/food/labelling/
food-labelling-for-industry/eng/1383607266489/1383607344939.
[5] Specifications and Standards for Foods, Food Additives, etc.
Under the Food Sanitation Act, Japan External Trade Organization, 2010.
[6] Australia and New Zealand Food Standards CodeStandard
2.6.2., Non-Alcoholic Beverages and Brewed Soft Drinks,
http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2013C00108.
[7] FDA Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 2014, http://www
.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/legislation/FederalFoodDrugandCosmeticActFDCAct/default.htm.
[8] FDA Food Additives Status List, http://www.phsource.us/PH/
PDF/FBI/IOM.pdf.
[9] F. Vergari, A. Tibuzzi, and G. Basile, An overview of the
functional food market: from marketing issues and commercial
players to future demand from life in space, in Bio-Farms
for Nutraceuticals, M. T. Giardi, G. Rea, and B. Berra, Eds.,
Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology, pp. 308321,
Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2010.
[10] G. Ristovska, M. Dmitrovska, and A. Najdenkoska, Safety
issues associated with nonalcoholic beverages, Food Safety
Magazine, vol. 6, pp. 5880, 2012.
12
[11] B. M. J. van der Meulen, The structure of European food law,
Laws, vol. 2, pp. 6998, 2013.
[12] P. R. Ashurst and R. Hargitt, Soft Drink and Fruit Juice Problems
Solved, CRC Press, Woodhead Publishing, Oxford, UK, 2009.
[13] M. Stratford and S. A. James, Non-alcoholic beverages and
yeasts, in Yeasts in Food, T. Boekhout and V. Robert, Eds.,
pp. 309345, Behrs Verlag GmbH & Co., Hamburg, Germany,
2003.
[14] R. Juvonen, V. Virkajarvi, O. Priha, and A. Laitila, Microbiological Spoilage and Safety Risks in Non-Beer Beverages Produced
in a Brewery Environment, VTT Tiedotteita-Research, Espoo,
Finland, 2011.
[15] A. Mortensen, Sweeteners permitted in the European Union:
safety aspects, Scandinavian Journal of Food and Nutrition, vol.
50, no. 3, pp. 104116, 2006.
[16] S. Hausmann, Tooth-friendly beverages can now be manufactured thanks to the functional carbohydrate, Wellness Foods
Europe, vol. 11, pp. 2629, 2009.
[17] C. Fitch and K. S. Keim, Position of the Academy of Nutrition
and Dietetics: use of nutritive and nonnutritive sweeteners,
Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, vol. 112, no.
5, pp. 739758, 2012.
[18] J. Y. Serpen, Comparison of sugar content in bottled 100% fruit
juice versus extracted juice of fresh fruit, Food and Nutrition
Sciences, vol. 3, pp. 15091513, 2012.
[19] EFSA, Scientific opinion on the re-evaluation of aspartame (E
951) as a food additive, The EFSA Journal, vol. 11, no. 12, article
3496, 2013.
[20] A. A. Saulo, Sugars and sweeteners in foods, in Food Safety
and Technology, FST-16, 2005, http://www.ctahr.hawaii.edu/oc/
freepubs/pdf/FST-16.pdf.
[21] EFSA, Scientific opinion on the substantiation of health claims
related to the sugar replacers xylitol, sorbitol, mannitol, maltitol,
lactitol, isomalt, erythritol, D-tagatose, isomaltulose, sucralose
and polydextrose and maintenance of tooth mineralisation
by decreasing tooth demineralisation (ID 463, 464, 563, 618,
647, 1182, 1591, 2907, 2921, 4300), and reduction of postprandial glycaemic responses (ID 617, 619, 669, 1590, 1762, 2903,
2908, 2920) pursuant to Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No
1924/2006, The EFSA Journal, vol. 9, no. 4, article 2076, 2011.
[22] EFSA, Scientific opinion on the safety of steviol glycosides for
the proposed uses as a food additive, The EFSA Journal, vol. 8,
no. 4, article 1537, 2010.
[23] R. S. McQuate, Ensuring the safety of sweeteners from stevia,
Food Technology, vol. 65, no. 4, pp. 4249, 2011, http://www.ift
.org/food-technology/past-issues/2011/april/features/ensuringthe-safety-of-sweeteners-from-stevia.aspx?page=viewall.
[24] J. W. Anderson, P. Baird, R. H. Davis Jr. et al., Health benefits
of dietary fiber, Nutrition Reviews, vol. 67, no. 4, pp. 188205,
2009.
[25] U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services, Dietary Guidelines for Americans, U.S.
Government, Washington, DC, USA, 2010.
[26] EFSA, Scientific opinion on dietary reference values for carbohydrates and dietary fibre, The EFSA Journal, vol. 8, no. 3,
article 1462, 2010.
[27] B. Taylor, Ingredients and formulation of carbonated soft
drinks, in Carbonated Soft Drinks: Formulation and Manufacture, D. Steen and P. R. Ashurst, Eds., pp. 4886, Blackwell
Publishing, Oxford, UK, 2006.
13
[63] FDA, CFRCode of Federal Regulations Title 21, http://www
.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfCFR/CFRSearch.cfm?fr=
170.39.
[64] A. Misund, B. Frengstad, U. Siewers, and C. Reimann, Variation of 66 elements in European bottled mineral waters, Science
of the Total Environment, vol. 243-244, pp. 2141, 1999.
[65] C. Reimann, M. Birke, and P. Filzmoser, Reply to the comment
Bottled drinking water: water contamination from bottle
materials (glass, hard PET, soft PET), the influence of colour and
acidification by Hayo Muller-Simon, Applied Geochemistry,
vol. 25, no. 9, pp. 14641465, 2010.
[66] C. Reimann, M. Birke, and P. Filzmoser, Temperaturedependent leaching of chemical elements from mineral water
bottle materials, Applied Geochemistry, vol. 27, no. 8, pp. 1492
1498, 2012.
[67] W. Shotyk, M. Krachler, and B. Chen, Contamination of
Canadian and European bottled waters with antimony from
PET containers, Journal of Environmental Monitoring, vol. 8,
no. 2, pp. 288292, 2006.
[68] W. Shotyk and M. Krachler, Contamination of bottled waters
with antimony leaching from polyethylene terephthalate (PET)
increases upon storage, Environmental Science and Technology,
vol. 41, no. 5, pp. 15601563, 2007.
[69] M. Krachler and W. Shotyk, Trace and ultratrace metals in
bottled waters: survey of sources worldwide and comparison
with refillable metal bottles, Science of the Total Environment,
vol. 407, no. 3, pp. 10891096, 2009.
[70] C. Bach, X. Dauchy, M.-C. Chagnon, and S. Etienne, Chemical
compounds and toxicological assessments of drinking water
stored in polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles: a source of
controversy reviewed, Water Research, vol. 46, no. 3, pp. 571
583, 2012.
[71] S. Keresztes, E. Tatar, Z. Czegeny, G. Zaray, and V. G. Mihucz,
Study on the leaching of phthalates from polyethylene terephthalate bottles into mineral water, Science of the Total Environment, vol. 458460, pp. 451458, 2013.
[72] C. R. Jones, M. R. Adams, P. A. Zhdan, and A. H. L. Chamberlain, The role of surface physicochemical properties in
determining the distribution of the autochthonous microflora
in mineral water bottles, Journal of Applied Microbiology, vol.
86, no. 6, pp. 917927, 1999.
[73] N. Y. Jayasekara, G. M. Heard, J. M. Cox, and G. H. Fleet,
Association of micro-organisms with the inner surfaces of
bottles of non-carbonated mineral waters, Food Microbiology,
vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 115128, 1999.
[74] H. Leclerc and A. Moreau, Microbiological safety of natural
mineral water, FEMS Microbiology Reviews, vol. 26, no. 2, pp.
207222, 2002.
[75] M. Stratford, Food and beverages spoilage yeasts, in Yeasts in
Food and Beverages, A. Querol and G. H. Fleet, Eds., pp. 335
380, Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2006.
[76] Y. J. Park and J. Chen, Microbial quality of soft drinks
served by the dispensing machines in fast food restaurants and
convenience stores in Griffin, Georgia, and surrounding areas,
Journal of Food Protection, vol. 72, no. 12, pp. 26072610, 2009.
[77] T. Sikora, Methods and systems of food quality and safety
assurance, Polish Journal of Food and Nutrition Sciences, vol.
14/55, supplement 1, pp. 4148, 2005.
[78] W. Back, Colour Atlas and Handbook of Beverage Biology,
Fachverlag Hans Carl, Nuremberg, Germany, 2005.
14
[79] K. Lawlor, J. Schuman, P. Simpson, and J. Taormina, Microbiological spoilage of beverages, in Compendium of the Microbiological Spoilage of Foods and Beverages, W. H. Sperber and M. P.
Doyle, Eds., Food Microbiology and Food Safety, pp. 245283,
Springer, New York, NY, USA, 2009.
[80] A. A. L. Tribst, A. S. SantAna, and P. R. de Massaguer, Review:
microbiological quality and safety of fruit juicespast, present
and future perspectives, Critical Reviews in Microbiology, vol.
35, no. 4, pp. 310339, 2009.
[81] A. S. Shanker, A. Kodaparthi, and P. K. Pindi, Microbial
diversity in soft drinks, Journal of Pharmaceutical and Scientific
Innovation, vol. 1, pp. 2326, 2012.
[82] H. Steels, S. A. James, I. N. Roberts, and M. Stratford, Zygosaccharomyces lentus: a significant new osmophilic, preservativeresistant spoilage yeast, capable of growth at low temperature,
Journal of Applied Microbiology, vol. 87, no. 4, pp. 520527, 1999.
[83] W. H. Sperber, Introduction to the microbiological spoilage
of foods and beverages, in Compendium of the Microbiological
Spoilage of Foods and Beverages, W. H. Sperber and M. P. Doyle,
Eds., Food Microbiology and Food Safety, pp. 139, Springer,
New York, NY, USA, 2009.
[84] M. Stratford, A. Plumridge, and D. B. Archer, Decarboxylation
of sorbic acid by spoilage yeasts is associated with the PAD1
gene, Applied and Environmental Microbiology, vol. 73, no. 20,
pp. 65346542, 2007.
[85] D. D. Davenport, Microbiology of soft drinks, in Chemistry
and Technology of Soft Drinks and Fruit Juices, P. Ashurst, Ed.,
pp. 197216, Academic Press, CRC, Sheffield, UK, 2005.
[86] O. Filtenborg, J. C. Frisvad, and R. A. Samson, Specific
association of fungi to foods and influence of physical environmental factors, in Introduction to Food-and Airborne Fungi,
R. A. Samson, E. H. Hoekstra, and J. C. Frisvad, Eds., pp.
306320, Centraalbureau voor Schimmelcultures, Utrecht, The
Netherlands, 2004.
[87] M. J. Jay, Modern Food Microbiology, Aspen Publishers, Aspen,
Colo, USA, 2000.
[88] R. Scholte, R. Samson, and J. Dijskterhuis, Spoilage fungi in
the industrial processing of foods, in Introduction to Food- and
Airborne Fungi, R. Samson, E. Hoekstra, and J. Frisvad, Eds., pp.
339359, Centraalbureau voor Schimmelcultures, Utrecht, The
Netherlands, 2004.
[89] K. M. J. Swanson, Nonalcoholic beverages, in Microorganisms
in Foods, International Commission on Microbiological Specifications for Foods, Ed., vol. 8, pp. 269280, Springer, London,
UK, 2011.
[90] P. Wareing and D. D. Davenport, Microbiology of soft drinks
and fruit juices, in Chemistry and Technology of Soft Drinks and
Fruit Juices, P. Ashurst, Ed., pp. 279299, Blackwell Publishing,
London, UK, 2005.
[91] T. Jayalakshmi, P. Krishnamoorthy, G. R. Kumar, and P. Sivamani, The microbiological quality of fruit containing soft
drinks from Chennai, Journal of Chemical and Pharmaceutical
Research, vol. 3, no. 6, pp. 626630, 2011.
[92] R. R. M. Paterson and N. Lima, How will climate change affect
mycotoxins in food? Food Research International, vol. 43, no. 7,
pp. 19021914, 2010.
[93] W. P. Hammes and C. Hertel, Genus I. Lactobacillus Beijerink
1901, in Bergeys Manual of Systematic Bacteriology, P. de Vos,
G. M. Garrity, D. Jones et al., Eds., vol. 3, pp. 465510, Springer,
Berlin, Germany, 2009.
[94] S. Taskila and H. Ojamo, The current status and future
expectations in industrial production of lactic acid by lactic acid
[95]
[96]
[97]
[98]
[99]
[100]
[101]
[102]
[103]
[104]
[105]
[106]
[107]
[108]
[109]
[110]
Sicnerov
a, and P. Ulbrich, Asaia sp. as a bacterium decaying the
packaged still fruit beverages, Czech Journal of Food Sciences,
vol. 27, pp. S362S365, 2009.
D. Kregiel, Attachment of Asaia lannensis to materials commonly used in beverage industry, Food Control, vol. 32, no. 2,
pp. 537542, 2013.
J. E. Moore, M. McCalmont, J. Xu, B. C. Millar, and N. Heaney,
Asaia sp., an unusual spoilage organism of fruit-flavored
bottled water, Applied and Environmental Microbiology, vol. 68,
no. 8, pp. 41304131, 2002.
J. E. Moore, J. Xu, N. Heaney, and B. C. Millar, Spoilage of fruitflavoured bottled water by Gluconacetobacter sacchari, Food
Microbiology, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 399401, 2002.
D. Kregiel, A. Rygala, Z. Libudzisz, P. Walczak, and E. OltuszakWalczak, Asaia lannensis-the spoilage acetic acid bacteria
isolated from strawberry-flavored bottled water in Poland,
Food Control, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 147150, 2012.
C. Chauret, Survival and control of Escherichia coli O157:H7
in foods, beverages, soil and water, Virulence, vol. 2, no. 6, pp.
593601, 2011.
D. Kregiel and A. Rygala, Occurrence of heterotrophic bacteria
of the genus Aeromonas in a water distribution system: a case
study, Ochrona Srodowiska, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 4750, 2010.
D. Kregiel, Adhesion of Aeromonas hydrophila to glass surfaces
modified with organosilanes, Food Technology and Biotechnology, vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 345351, 2013.
M. Mollapour and P. W. Piper, Weak organic acid resistance of
spoilage yeasts, in Stress in Yeast and Filamentous Fungi, vol.
27 of British Mycological Society Symposia Series, pp. 143155,
Elsevier, New York, NY, USA, 2008.
A. A. Tribst, S. SantAna Ade, and P. R. de Massaguer, Review:
Microbiological quality and safety of fruit juicespast, present
and future perspectives, Critical Reviews in Microbiology, vol.
35, no. 4, pp. 310339, 2009.
K. Czaczyk and K. Myszka, Biosynthesis of extracellular
polymeric substances (EPS) and its role in microbial biofilm
formation, Polish Journal of Environmental Studies, vol. 16, no.
6, pp. 799806, 2007.
M. A. Akond, S. Alam, S. M. R. Hasan, S. Mubassara, S. N.
Uddin, and M. Shirin, Bacterial contaminants in carbonated
soft drinks sold in Bangladesh markets, International Journal
of Food Microbiology, vol. 130, no. 2, pp. 156158, 2009.
15
International Journal of
Peptides
BioMed
Research International
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com
Volume 2014
Advances in
Stem Cells
International
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com
Volume 2014
Volume 2014
Virolog y
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com
International Journal of
Genomics
Volume 2014
Volume 2014
Journal of
Nucleic Acids
Zoology
InternationalJournalof
Volume 2014
Volume 2014
Journal of
Signal Transduction
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com
Genetics
Research International
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com
Volume 2014
Anatomy
Research International
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com
Volume 2014
Enzyme
Research
Archaea
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com
Volume 2014
Volume 2014
Biochemistry
Research International
International Journal of
Microbiology
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com
Volume 2014
International Journal of
Evolutionary Biology
Volume 2014
Volume 2014
Volume 2014
Molecular Biology
International
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com
Volume 2014
Advances in
Bioinformatics
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com
Volume 2014
Journal of
Marine Biology
Volume 2014
Volume 2014